Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Garageland66 reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Indef)

Page: Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Garageland66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14 September 17:39 - multiple reverts to different changes of this version.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1][2][3] - consecutive reverts (so - 1 for 3RR) of user:GizzyCatBella (2) and Icewhiz - 15 September 08:25-08:28
2. 10:28, 15 September 2018 revert of 09:26, 15 September 2018 by user:Slatersteven
3. 06:53, 16 September 2018 - revert of Icewhiz.
4. 07:03, 16 September 2018 + 07:07, 16 September 2018 (which reverted the intervening edit by Icewhiz at 06:53 - so this is not an oversight in regards that there were intervening edits).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:55, 16 September 2018 - warned when he hit 3RR - not acknowledgement of response at 07:05 [4] before the second revert in the 07:03-07:07 revert chain.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is a bunch of different changes - some of them being new. The mural title (part of reverts 1 & 2) is discussed at [5]. Lipstadt - part of revert 4 (other experts being new additions today) discussed at - [6] (and attempt of re-titling section was a result of K.e.coffman's comments. The intro section (modified, not removed) in revert3 is newly added from 15 September. Other talk page content may also be relevant.

Comments:
I myself made precisely 1 revert (in an edit chain in 0616-0646 on 16 September) in the past 24 hours, my previous edit being on 14 September (and not a revert).

per WP:3RR - "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. While Garageland66 did not repeat the exact same revert (though he has reverted changes to the same sections) - he has made reverts (which are easy to ascertain as they all used the "undo" button) to different material (by 3 different users I might add) - thus this violates the "different material" provision of 3RR. Furthermore, these aren't inadvertent slip ups with intervening edits - as in each case in revert chains 2,3 and 4 - at least one of the reverts is a revert of an intervening edit.

I had mentioned to the user violations of ARBPIA 1RR (relevant in part to this article - though the edits to the sections above are probably not conflict related) in the past - [7][8] and 3RR [9] - but chose not to report since I got a positive response and I thought the user was newish (returning from a wikibreak on May 2018, and not being involved in ARBPIA before). However, the response I got to the 3RR warning today - 07:05, 16 September 2018 - "I'm not involved in an edit war. I'm involved in protecting an article. Editors are entitled to revert edits. Especially edits that have not been discussed and agreed. - in my mind exhibits WP:OWNERSHIP - the user seeing himself as a gatekeeper (protecting the article), and seeing reverts as an entitlement - this response was followed by another revert.Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It does look like a 4RR. Although some may not technically be reverts. But I am not sure about all this 1RR stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

1RR (ARBPIA) is irrelevant for this report (in the two headsups I cited above - this was clear Israel/Palestine content - however in this case we have the antisemitic mural, holocaust denial, etc. - not clearly ARBPIA). All of Garageland66 diffs above were performed with the "undo" button (edit summary beginning with Undid revision X, tagged with undo) - and thus are unambiguously full reverts. Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet this one [[10]] is not in fact a straight revert, as the page never said this (at least not at the start of this latest spat). And the ARBPIA ruling was for pages that could be reasonably said to be about the Israel/Palestine conflict, not sections of an article. As the actual people who are the subject of this article (from both sides) have all said this is not about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but about antisemitism in the UK, it is hard to see how we can say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

There's also a pretty clear WP:BLP implication, the removed material supports a long-standing campaign against Jeremy Corbyn. I would say the default should be to remove the material pending consensus on Talk, multiple reverts notwithstanding. That article is ... not great. A lot of he-said-she-said content. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have made this very point myself (more then once), it is far more of a BLP then an article about the Israel/Palestine conflict, and it is a BLP violation to accuse an artists work of antisemitism in Wikipedia voice when RS are not that unanimous it is clearly antisemitic. But I am not sure all of his edits did tackle BLP issues. Example how is this [[11]] addressing any BLP concerns?Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Garageland66 has continued to revert the article while making no response to the complaint here. His last block was for six months, ending in May 2018. The last blocking admin, User:Tedder, stated in the block message that Garageland66 was "clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. See also WP:TEND". Garageland66 was advised in June 2018 Hi, after a six month block you appear to be straight back to the same single focus contributions that got you all your previous blocks - six months should have told you something.. I'm planning to issue one final warning, and if no response, will consider an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag- I still watch the user's page, so I saw things were coming up. I have no problem with an indef if there's no attempt at engaging in discussion. tedder (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really sure what the problem is. I did ONE revert today. Reverting a change to a paragraph in the introduction that had been in place for weeks. [12] There had not been any discussion on the Talk Page about this and so I feel I'm entitled to revert it. Garageland66 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – User has been on Wikipedia three years, has been blocked six times for as long as six months, and still doesn't understand the requirement to get consensus on disputed articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

User:76.9.74.127 reported by User:Sakaimover (Result: Page protected)

Page

Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

76.9.74.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

• [13] - original edit, removing sourced information

Diffs of the user's reverts

• 1.[14]
• 2.[15]
• 3.[16]
• 4.[17]
• 5.[18]
• 6.[19]
• 7.[20]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[21]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• IP has been asked to discuss on talk page in edit summary [22], but refuses to engage: "I will not" [23]
• Inviting IP to participate in discussion here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakaimover (talk • contribs) 23:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Likewise on their talk page: [24]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

• Appears to be a POV editor. "There is no vandalism, only truth" [25]
• The IP is continuing to edit war despite my attempt to involve them in discussion. I believe a block is in order to prevent further disruption. Sakaimover (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I've decided to semi-protect the page for 4 days instead of pursuing a block, in the (perhaps overly idealistic) hopes that they will engage in discussion. RFPP request Airplaneman ✈ 02:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Airplaneman ✈ 02:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

comment: the IP has shown that they don’t intend to engage in collaborative discussion, so I believe they will register an account in order to continue the edit war. I believe a block is the best way to prevent this from happening. Sakaimover (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection also prevents new accounts (not autoconfirmed) from editing, so this should not be a problem in the near future. In this way, protection functions in the same way as a block in disabling the editing of the page. Airplaneman ✈ 02:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Leadsoprano reported by User:Flat Out (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Northwestern High School (Indiana) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Leadsoprano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859918453 by Flat Out (talk)"
2. 04:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859918310 by Flat Out (talk) Will continue to undo. No listed accomplishments for music program, very different from athletics."
3. 04:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859918060 by John from Idegon (talk) You are unfairly deleting major accomplishments. Will continue to undo your deletions."
4. 04:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859917771 by John from Idegon (talk)"
5. 03:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859917422 by John from Idegon (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Northwestern High School (Indiana). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

see edit summary here and attempts from other editor

Comments:

2 reverts following level 4 warning Flat Out (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

And with edit summaries like "Will continue to undo..." along with IDHT attitude exhibited at their talk page, Leadsoprano's disruption is only bound to continue. In my opinion, this is perhaps an apt case for an indef-block unless the editor confirms they will not disruptively revert after being unblocked. Lourdes 11:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Normally, I might conclude this as stale, but I have a feeling when / if Leadsoprano next logs in, they'll start edit-warring again, so a block is still necessary, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Ilovetopaint reported by User:RivetHeadCulture (Result: No violation)

Page

Dark wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ilovetopaint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark_wave&diff=859894574&oldid=859680919

Comments:

Like months before, User:Ilovetopaint permanently vandalizes the article and removes sourced content under the pretext of 'article improvement'. I don't know what this guy is thinking. It's definitely not his field of expertise. That's for sure. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. While edit-warring over musical in genres in infoboxes is unconstructive, it's not vandalism (and never has been). Furthermore, Ilovetopaint is a prolific writer on the project, with multiple good articles under their belt, so the odds of them committing vandalism are extremely low to non-existent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So i have to revert his vandalism over and over again... If this is the solution... OK. And of course, it's vandalism. He removes sourced content. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

RivetHeadCulture, it's a common mistake to consider repetitive removal of sourced material as being equivalent to vandalism. But it's a critical misunderstanding that you need to clear out. Such editorial disagreements, even if exercised by a new editor, are not vandalism. Please read NOTVAND to understand more. Warmly, Lourdes 22:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Ergzay reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Warned)

Page: Hurricane Maria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ergzay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:
@Ergzay: insists on their version of the article when 4 out of 6 editors in the discussion oppose their arguments, and does not seem to be okay with just leaving the status quo while discussing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: insists that a consensus exists when no such consensus exists. We are currently still in the process of discussing. The actual status quo was the article with the changes made by user Audacity. I probably should have reported Jasper Deng for engaging in edit warring. Ergzay (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Secondly, you list 4 reverts, but I only count 3. The first revert was not a revert but a partial restoration of partial changes and would count as an edit, not a revert. I have made 3 reverts (and reverted my own changes afterwards in good faith, assuming you will engage in further discussion, which you don't appear to be doing). Ergzay (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Consider this report to be withdrawn as the editor has self-reverted the last revert. But for future notice, the first edit listed above does count as a revert.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please point to the documentation that describes what a revert is, for official records. An edit where some portion of the edit partially restores part of a previous edit while also adding additional edits is not a reversion in my opinion. Ergzay (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ergzay, you're mistaken. Please read the 3RR policy, which asserts, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert." Lourdes 22:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So even if I make a large change where many things are added and one word of a previous edit comes back in it is considered a revert? Just so we're clear... Ergzay (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. My response was to your earlier blanket statement of dismissing reverts as not being reverts because you added something additional. If you need specific responses on whether any diff is a revert or not, you can list those diffs. However, I would strongly suggest some foresight in allowing this report to close (as the OP has already suggested) than digging it up again. You can contact me on my talk page if you want any further assistance in understanding any diff's ramifications. Warmly, Lourdes 05:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, this complaint could be closed with no block provided that User:Ergzay agrees to make no further changes to Hurricane Maria without a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Ergzay is warned for edit warring at Hurricane Maria. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

User:RivetHeadCulture reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: Final warned)

Pages:
Dark wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ethereal wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RivetHeadCulture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: dark wave / ethereal wave

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Dark wave (dispute is over unsourced content / synthesized claims)

1. "Everything is sourced. If you don't stop, you'll be blocked."
2. "Your POV is completely irrelevant"
3. "Revert, vandalism. Again, this is sourced in the lead. Regularly, sources don't belong in the infobox."
4. "Please, be more realistic. Those times are long gone. Templates like this one are not helpful. If you place them there, they will stay there for years without any improvement."
5. "Not useful in any way. Such templates are nothing more than intrusive elements. They don't solve any problems."

Ethereal wave (dispute is over the excessive use of blockquotes)

1. no rationale
2. no rationale
3. no rationale
4. "That's not your decision"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dark wave / ethereal wave

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "If you don't understand shit, don't edit the article. It's that easy. I don't talk about the same shit over and over again anymore. I simply revert your shit."

Comments:
This is a year-long case of WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:GWAR. Talk page discussion has amounted to little progress, and they will not yield to any compromises. The dispute is mainly about questionable claims that are not verified by the sources. At least one other editor, @Woovee:, has tried asking them to clarify their German-text sources, to little effect. When I ask them to translate their quotes, they reply "Move your ass to the next library. I don't give a fuck. I'm not your gofer."

RivetHeadCulture has a long history of disruptive editing. I've asked administrative help for dealing with them at least 3 or 4 times, and nothing has been done, even though they are a ban evader. According to them, they've been "working" at Wikipedia since 2003? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time. The problem is old. Months ago, User:Ilovetopaint wanted quotes. I added quotes and tons of sources. But he always tries to destroy the article. One problem is: He has no idea about the topic. It's not his field of expertise. The second problem is: He doesn't understand the quotes. He doesn't speak German or French and he obviously doesn't accept sources from non-English speaking countries. There are tons of books. There are ISBN. Go to a library. I'm not your butler, goddamned. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"When I ask them to translate their quotes..."

1.) Yes, Woovee asked for translation... months ago. You didn't want a translation!

2.) It's not my job to translate sources for you. Simple fact.

3.) If you don't understand the meaning of the quotes, don't edit the article. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example of the kind of content RivetHeadCulture refuses to allow others to correct. There is a claim in the article that reads:

[dark wave] began to borrow elements of post-industrial music. Attrition,[33] ...

This is the only text in the source that mentions "dark wave". From a member of the group Attrition:

"At first, there wasn't the same sort of [Goth] scene and we were in more of an 'industrial' thing. There was nothing like the clubs you get now, it was actually quite difficult to play anywhere that would appreciate you. It's a lot easier now, it's not just Goth, it's a mix - Darkwave or whatever. That's gotten stronger, so that has helped, but really, we were there before it was built."

In other words, what the source actually says is that the early goth scene was "more of an 'industrial' thing" that later mixed with "darkwave or whatever". Nothing about the dark wave genre "borrowing elements from post-industrial music" (and who knows what those "elements" are?). Since we've established a pattern, it should be reasonable to suggest that every claim attributed to a non-English source is highly likely to be embellished in the same way. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed not one of my sources. As far as i remember it was added by User:Donnachadelong approx. 12 years ago. But that is not the point and surely not the centerpiece of the problem here. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Your restorations of original research is, in fact, the "centerpiece" of the issue. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Calling everything "Original Research" is the issue. I will show you Original Research, written by you. "The term was originally used in obscure European circles in the 1980s to describe prominent goth bands of the era" That's your OR. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Only 3RR, but editor final warned on their talk page about their general editing demeanour. All parties should now be using the talkpage rather than edit-warring - any further infractions will incur a block. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

We discussed this already to death. User:Ilovetopaint doesn't stop vandalizing the article. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@RivetHeadCulture:, what we have also discussed to death is your mislabeling the edits as vandalism. To continue do so despite it being explained repeatedly that you are wrong is disruptive. In addition to the final warning regarding edit warring, I'm also warning you that further mischaracterization of Ilovetopaint's edits as vandalism will result in a block.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply absurd. Call it what you want. He removes sourced content. That's the problem. Nothing else. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing absurd about it. And no, it's not about "call it what you want"; it's about "call it exactly what it is". You should consider reading WP:NOTVAND and understanding the differences between editorial disputes and vandalism. Lourdes 16:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not dispute. It's mischievous destruction of sourced material. Something that he calls "nuke". And it's not the first time. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Helloman124 reported by User:VietPride10 (Result: )

Page: Australian Survivor: Champions vs. Contenders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Helloman124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34],

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:
User has repeatedly reverted my edits without using the talk page as having told to do so more than once. I have gave them multiple warnings and have asked them to use the article talk numerous times instead of constantly reverting. In addition, they seem to be reverting simply because they don't like the precedent and their only justification is the table looks "messy". Also seems like user used their IP as well to revert my edit, to avoid edit-warring. VietPride10 (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

User:2604:2000:1382:C5DD:0:E081:BE3B:628B reported by User:Carl Tristan Orense (Result: Stale )

Page

Glenn Weiss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2604:2000:1382:C5DD:0:E081:BE3B:628B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "I’ve looked thru the refs. IMDb isn’t allowed as a bio ref. The uncited birth date is a BLP vio. I’m looking for an RS cite."
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC) to 13:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Career */WP:PEACOCK and same facts from beginning repeated at end"
   2. 13:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Blatant WP:BLP violations. Note that 3RR does not apply to deleting BLP vios. You CANNOT make uncited claims about living people’s personal lives"
3. 13:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "We CANNOT make uncited claims about birthdate or middle initial. These are blatant WP:BLP violations"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [41]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See link above for talk

Comments:

• Stale Looks like the edit warring stopped of its own accord. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Just robd reported by User:LionMans Account (Result: warned)

Page: Topeka, Kansas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Just robd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:

Looks like the user/ip are trying to add a non-notable restaurant to the article. LionMans Account (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki editing and didn't realize that I shouldn't revert. User LionsMan reverted my initial addition to the page without engaging me on talk pages. I don't think the user LionsMan is aware that the restaurant I added to the article exists. It is one of the most popular and notable restaurants in downtown Topeka, has been for years. The restaurant is part of the historic Thacher building, is frequented by the Kansas State Legislature and downtown patrons, and is definitely cemented as part of the downtown Topeka culture, scene, and history. In addition - in the "Cuisine" section of the Topeka wiki page, it lists various other restaurants where an opinion of "notable" could be formed by anyone. How is it different for this one restaurant that I added? It seems that LionsMan wants the "Cuisine" section only to list restaurants that are by his opinion "notable". Furthermore there is text in the Cuisine section that states "other local family-owned restaurants" - why is it OK to use this text, but not list additional restaurants that are "notable", "local", and "family" owned? Just robd (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Only restaurants that are notable enough for their own articles should generally be mentioned. Talking quite a while ago instead of blind reverts would have been helpful, folks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that the article concerned is Topeka, Kansas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), whereas Topeka, KS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is merely a redirect to it (so its history doesn't show the reverts in question. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC) I changed the above header to refer to Topeka, Kansas instead of the redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven reported by User:72bikers (Result: Stale)

Page: AR-15 style rifle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:
This article is under a WP:1RR policy. He has violated it reverting me twice in 24 hours. After I challenged this content and started a talk page discussion.

I first tried to get clarification of this substantial claim with this "Others have claimed that AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" (with this reference[50]) mass shootings in the US. This source had no attributed author nor was it attributed as a quote from anyone and no other support. This was removed by Slatersteven [51] After a couple days I again added [52] "by who" and was reverted [53]. I then removed the statement and started a talk page discussion. He has incorrectly claimed this was supported by many sorces that were removed when there was a consensus to remove citation overkill. Without I believe even going back and reading any of them. "You want us to reinsert all the sources again?" [54] and [55].

He then attempted to support it with the same article in other media outlets with either a complete copy word for word or just copies of paragraphs, with all coping this word for word, "On average, more than 13,000 people are killed each year in the United States by guns, and most of those incidents involve handguns while a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm. Still, the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings"

Please take notice of the incivility with the attempt to resolve the dispute on article talk page ("here now is also the issue of SS violating the WP:1RR" - you should file a report and see what happens.) (And I did not add another example of the CBS source So before you have a go at others ability to comprehended learn to read) He did by the way word for word ([56] old and new [57]) and this was the issue that was raised "lack of comprehension of the issue", perhaps other words should have been chosen, but simply meant missed the point. (There are gazillions of sources that make that claim, if not in those precise words, in very similar ones. It's extremely well supported) no source shown to support that theory.

Editor Slaterstevn has shown a WP:OWNERSHIP behavior in this article. He has repeatedly denied me to edit the article such as all these reverts [58],[59], [60], [61], [62],[63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72],[73], [74],[75], [76]. My edits I tried to include when in the "Use in crime and mass shootings" section of the article have been with reliable on topic sources with recognized experts such as chronologist like James Alan Fox a professor of criminology and widly respected along with professor of criminology Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University's Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center—which studies mass murder. Though a admin I know was able to include a brief comment from Blair. Anything I have tried to remove was either redundant or not supported by a source also reverted blindly. -72bikers (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• In spite of the clear violations, I'm sure the 1RR or consensus page restrictions are enforceable here. SS was not formally notified of the discretionary sanctions, as is required. I have issued him the template. 𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 ^𝔛 00:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I notified him of the required notification. As to the discretionary sanctions he is well aware of this as he has been involved with the article talk page for over six months and sought sanctions against and me [77]. As well as participated in trying to get a other editor sanctioned [78]. This is him discussing the DS for this article [79] and here [80] Enforcement procedure Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction. -72bikers (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Clear discretionary sanctions knowledge DS is in place. is not equal being correctly cautioned. Is it?GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven has issued statements on gun-control WP:AE reports several times [81], so he's well aware of the sanctions.--Pudeo (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Clear awareness of sanctions is obvious but shouldn't the editor be properly notified first? GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Stale The edits were all yesterday, so the time to block has passed. If Slatersteven is blocked, he can't continue the discussion on the talk page. I think it's worth keeping an eye on the article, and possibly protecting it if further wars break out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I favor dropping this with mention that both sides should be mindful of DS rules. However, I can't see the specific logic used to close this. The report was filed in a timely fashion and got replies in less than 24 hours. I get (and support) feeling that this shouldn't result in sanctions but there claim of "stale" seems very wrong in this case. Springee (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I will note that 72 bikers made two edits at 24 hours and 7 minutes apart, the very same edits I undid. Thus I would argue we both (but more so me) forgot ourselves. As to the rest of it, this is an edit war report, and so I will not comment on anything else. However I did breach 1RR and that was wrong. Simply put I forgot the page was under 1RR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Bsems reported by User:Amaury (Result: Page protected)

Page

World of Dance (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bsems (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860193900 by IJBall (talk)"
2. 23:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860185002 by Amaury (talk) you can't just change it"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC) to 21:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860095449 by Gonnym (talk) I am following the Season 1 format and giving clarification for the winners."
   2. 21:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860095494 by Gonnym (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC) to 02:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
   1. 02:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859944358 by Gonnym (talk)"
   2. 02:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 859944861 by Gonnym (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on World of Dance (season 2). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring to go against MOS:BOLD and is now at WP:DE level. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Page protected Full-protected for 24 hours. Now, let me see if I've got this right, y'all have been edit-warring over whether something has bold text or not. (irony intended) Give me strength..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You should focus on the guy who's been edit-warring against the MOS. No one else here has crossed WP:3RR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies. When I see a report here with no link next to the "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page", I consider everyone to be at fault, because nobody started the discussion, which is how you avoid edit wars. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Realistically speaking, the onus and responsibility to start the discussion is on the one who is making controversial edits, not those who are trying to maintain the WP:STATUSQUO. Is it my responsibility to talk to a teacher about my friend possibly retaking a test he failed because he didn't study? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Not always as consensus can change sometimes its best to start a discussion even if there is a status quo established to help resolve a dispute in my opinion. As an un-involved editor who has had conflict with Bsems in the past I don't see anything that would have given this user the impression the bolding was wrong considering World of Dance (season 1) is using similar bolding to what Bsems is trying to do with the second season article. I think a discussion needs to happen about if this is better than this and apply the consensus to the first season article. I would also recommend not changing the first season article until this is sorted out with the second season article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, I asked him several times to explain his reverts with at least a summary, which took him a few reverts until he actually said something. I've also checked his talkpage and he just doesn't seem to respond to any message left. And yes, following style guidelines is what helps articles not become the circus freak which is America's Got Talent (season 13)#Top 36 acts. To Alucard 16, I actually did write in my revert why I was reverting and linked to the MoS on it, so there is no reason for him not to know, but he might just have ignored it. Also, I was actually the one that updated those tables in season 2 which have been copied for following sections. Somewhere in his adding of new information he decided to bold the data which wasn't present, so regardless of what is in season 1, he should have seeked consensus for that change. Lastly, not following a style MoS just because a local consensus decides to ignore it for the sake of something(?) is in my opinion, a bad idea. --Gonnym (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Sagecandor reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No action)

Page

Mark Judge (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "publication was itself discussed in secondary soruce"
2. 20:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "the last name of the journalist is not a URL, it is a person's name"
3. 19:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "father and grandfather have same name"
4. 19:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "add"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning given here, it was removed here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussion at another editor's talk page as well as at the article talk page here.

Comments:

• Comment: I apologize. The first and 2nd were agreed to be a mistake by the other editor in question [82]. I have been researching and expanding the article greatly with sources. I agree that it was a mistake on my part to add material back in that fashion, and I should have gone to the talk page earlier and proactively myself. Myself and the other editor have been discussing on the talk page, and I believe we have made some progress [83]. Once again, I apologize and I agree to take greater care while editing to expand and improve an article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Declined As stated above, Sagecandor has apologised for reverting and is busy improving the article, so a block would be completely counter-productive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Fartwingsdick reported by User:PoliceSheep99 (Result: )

Page

Gang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fartwingsdick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 23:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'Jake PAUL waz Here please cop some of my dope merch. Link in bio. BBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRROOOOOOO!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11'"
3. 23:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'Jake Paul waz here!? Its everyday bro- JP J'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:PoliceSheep99, please don't waste our time on this board. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

User:65.111.114.121 reported by User:Anachronist (Result: )

Page: Criticism of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 65.111.114.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89] (prior to recent revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted to discuss on user's talk page here and here, with the user removing my first comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

This is a slow-rate edit war with the anonymous IP insisting on adding an unsourced personal interpretation of a religious text (a primary source), in spite of being asked to provide reliable scholarly secondary sources. The user insists that this is in the interest of "balance", engaging in personal attacks[90] while doing so, in spite of being reverted by another editor also (Alina Haidar (talk · contribs) here). ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)